All that glitters is not gold: rethinking openness from the affected population of a cyanide spill in Jáchal, Argentina

In previous posts, we proposed that accessibility and openness in science do not necessarily lead to the appropriation and utilization of scientific knowledge by social actors.

The socio-technical controversy surrounding cyanide spills occurring near the city of Jáchal in the province of San Juan, Argentina demonstrates the emergence of factors that hinder the access and utilization of scientific knowledge by affected populations in spite of the imperative to resolve environmental degradation processes with this knowledge.

Studying this controversy can provide valuable insights for OCSDnet since it allows an analysis of the problem of openness from a different perspective: When knowledge is not being produced under regimes of openness (Hilgartner, 2012), how might it be possible for affected populations to “open up” or access these vital sets of knowledge? Can affected populations force such an “opening up” of vital elite knowledge sets, and if so, through what means and methods?

Answering these questions allow us to identify the skills, competencies and resources needed by non-expert publics in order to mobilize scientific knowledge, and to shift the focus of the analysis from the producers of knowledge (related to the problem of access) to the affected publics, (related to their appropriation capacities).

In previous posts, we proposed that accessibility and openness in science do not necessarily lead to the appropriation and utilization of scientific knowledge by social actors. Here we explore one of our case studies more in detail: the socio-technical controversy surrounding cyanide spills occurring near the city of Jáchal in the province of San Juan, Argentina. This is an ongoing controversy that emerged during 2015 from Cyanide spills that compromised vital water resources in the northeast area of San Juan. Several technical reports were commissioned to assess pollution levels, each of which contained notoriously different verdicts. The controversy confronted diverse parties including Barrick Gold, a mining company in charge of the Veladero mining site; the provincial executive government; different media outlets; public and private universities; environmental control institutions; and entrepreneurs linked to mining activities. In parallel, the local grassroots movement, “Jáchal No Se Toca” (Hands off Jáchal, or AJNST) established a partnership with different environmental associations, such as the Union of Citizen Assemblies (UAC), the Environmental Lawyers’ Association of Argentina (Asociación Argentina de Abogados Ambientalistas, or AAdeAA), left-wing parties, NGOs and independent associations of experts and researchers.

The Jáchal controversy can show how certain features of access, appropriation and utilization of scientific knowledge become increasingly frequent in this type of disputes. Here we discuss here two interrelated topics:

the need of the affected population to access and use scientific knowledge to resolve environmental degradation processes that involve vital risks;

the emergence of factors that hinder the access and utilization of scientific knowledge.

In the case of the Jáchal controversy, scientific knowledge has not been a priori open or accessible to the population; on the contrary, it is actively restricted and hidden. This “closed” regime of knowledge production, in combination with different legal regulations, makes it difficult for the population to know about the safety of water or the degradation of flora and fauna in areas surrounding the city of Jáchal. This is vital information, as not only it is useful to decide whether to drink water or not, but also as to help them take part in the resolution of the dispute, which may, in turn, determine the future of mining in the area.

The approach to this controversy can provide valuable insights for OCSDnet since it allows an analysis of the problem of openness from a different perspective: When knowledge is not being produced under regimes of openness (Hilgartner, 2012), how might it be possible for affected populations to “open up” or access these vital sets of knowledge? Can affected populations force such an “opening up” of vital elite knowledge sets, and if so, through what means and methods?

Answering these questions can help us clarify at least two key issues:

to identify the skills, competencies and resources needed by non-expert publics in order to mobilize scientific knowledge, and

to shift the focus of the analysis from the producers of knowledge (related to the problem of access) to the affected publics, (related to their appropriation capacities).

In the next section, we illustrate two moments of the mining controversy that show the restrictions, as well as the abilities and resources brought into play by part of the population.

Creating capabilities for utilizing opennessAfter the emergence of the controversy in September 2015, reports on water safety were carried out by university and private laboratories as paid, private services (that is, “commissioned science” [Jasonoff, 1990]). Only very few actors had then access to their results and criteria. The “Hands off Jáchal” local grassroots movement (Asamblea de Jáchal No Se Toca, AJNST) tackled this problem in three different but simultaneous ways:

First, they set political resources in motion in order to appeal to the local government, and thus request “alternative” sources of expertise and verdict. Second, the criteria for the selection of laboratories included the possibility of socializing and discussing results and procedures: this involved conversations between participants and experts (hydrologists, geologists, etc.), but also established ties with political and expert stakeholders from diverse contexts. The AJNST chose a laboratory at the University of Cuyo, located in the province of Mendoza and thus outside the circle of influence of government of San Juan, an ally of the mining company. Third, as the controversy gained visibility due to political demonstrations, it also gained access to diverse media sources.

Another obstacle on the road to accessing information stemmed from the fact that the mining enclave itself is practically inaccessible. An in situ analysis of the events could be helpful in determining actual pollution levels to understand the contamination’s degree. Many interviewed stakeholders, however, have considered the mining location to constitute a sort of a “parastate” that falls out of national and provincial regulations. The AJNST approached political groups, environmental organizations and professional associations such as the Environmental Lawyers’ Association of Argentina (Asociación Argentina de Abogados Ambientalistas, AAdeAA) and succeeded in taking the case to the federal court, which was under the provincial jurisdiction. In this way, between March and April 2016, a renowned consultant, Robert Moran, hired by the AJNST, was allowed to enter and carry out inspections in the mine, providing crucial information regarding mining conditions and pollution degrees.

These two simple “moments” of the controversy allowed us to identify the dynamics by which people organized around the AJNST overcome socio-cognitive barriers and manage to effectively utilize scientific knowledge. These were, in sum, social solutions to the problem of “capacity” building. In this case, the local grassroots movement deployed the necessary skills, resources and competencies, or established partnerships with those who did possess them and could collaborate in the resolution of the controversy.